Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia
Fifth Edition (2014)
IV. OFFENSES
Instruction 4.112. ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO COMMIT MURDER

D.C. Official Code § 22-403 (2001)

A. ATTEMPTED BATTERY ASSAULT

The elements of the offense of assault with intent to murder, each of which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, are that:

1. [Name of defendant], with force or violence, injured or attempted to injure [name of complainant] [another person];

2. S/he did so voluntarily, on purpose, and not by mistake or accident; [and]

[3. At that time, [name of defendant] had the apparent ability to injure [name of complainant] [a person]; [and]]

4. At that time, [name of defendant] intended to kill [name of complainant][.][; and]

[5. [There were no mitigating circumstances.][

[Name of defendant] did not act in self-defense.]

[There were no mitigating circumstances and [name of defendant] did not act in self-defense.]]

B. INTENT-TO-FRIGHTEN ASSAULT

[The elements of the offense of assault with intent to murder, each of which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, are that:]

[Another way the government may prove an assault with intent to commit kill is by proving each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt, that:]

1. [Name of defendant] committed a threatening act that reasonably would create in another person a fear of immediate injury;

2. S/he did so voluntarily, on purpose, and not by mistake or accident;

3. At that time, [name of defendant] had the apparent ability to injure [name of complainant] [a person]; [and]

4. At that time of the threatening act, [name of defendant] intended to kill [name of complainant][.][; and][

5. [There were no mitigating circumstances.]

[[Name of defendant] did not act in self-defense.]]

[There were no mitigating circumstances, and [name of defendant] did not act in self-defense.]]

Intent to kill means purpose or conscious intention to cause death.

[Self-Defense

Self-defense is a complete defense to assault with intent to murder. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. If it does not, you must find the defendant not guilty of assault with intent to murder. [The difference between self-defense that is a mitigating circumstance and self-defense that is a complete defense is whether the defendant’s honest beliefs were unreasonable or reasonable.]

[Give self-defense instructions]]

[Mitigating circumstances

Mitigating circumstances exist in two situations. One is when a person acts in the heat of passion caused by adequate provocation. Heat of passion includes rage, resentment, anger, terror and fear. A person acts upon adequate provocation if his/her action is provoked by conduct that would cause an ordinary, reasonable person in the heat of the moment to lose his/her self-control and act on impulse and without reflection. An act of violence or an immediate threat of violence may be adequate provocation, but a slight provocation, entirely out of proportion to the defendant’s retaliation, is not adequate provocation. Mere words, no matter how offensive, are not adequate provocation. [Provocation must be such as would provoke a reasonable person—in other words, a sober person. Therefore, if the defendant was provoked simply because s/he was intoxicated, and a sober person would not have been provoked, the provocation would not be adequate.]

The other situation where mitigating circumstances can exist is when the defendant did not reasonably act in self-defense. These mitigating circumstances exist where the defendant actually and honestly believes that s/he is in danger of serious bodily injury, and actually and honestly believes that the use of force is necessary to defend against that danger, but one or both of those beliefs are unreasonable. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there were no mitigating circumstances.]

[If the victim was under 18 or was 60 years of age or older, insert Sentencing Enhancement Based on Age, No. 8.103.]